Mrs. Rada Jaya Mani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

MRS. RADA ANJULATHA, W/O. SAKALA RAMAKRISHNA, AGED 38 YEARS, 0CC EMPLOYEE, D.NO.B1-1, LIC STAN QUARTERS, JEEVAN SAGAR, NEAR, POLAMAMBA TEMPLE, PEDHA WALTIER, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶11

M. GONDA WILLIAMS JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, 0CC PASTOR D.NO.19-262/1, CHANDRANAGAR, GOPALAPATNAM.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD.

¶15

MRS RADA DIVYA SINDHUJA, W/O. JAYA KUMAR, AGE 27 YEARS, 0CC HOUSE WIFE, 3RD WARD, CHRISTIANPET, KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioners in C.C.No.1463 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, kovvur, West Godavari District pending disposal of this Criminal Petition and pass such

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.M RAVIKANTH REDDY

¶19

2

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶21

1.PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU

¶22

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

ORDER :

¶25

The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ has been filed, by the Petitioners/A2, A4, A5 and A6, seeking quash of the proceedings against them in CC No.1463 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur, West Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶26

Heard Sri M.Ravikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State and Sri P.Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the A2 is the mother-in-law, the A4 and A5 are sisters-in-law of respondent No.2 and the A6 is the Pastor, who performed the marriage. Further, the marriage of A1 with respondent No.2 was performed on 07.03.2021 and both stayed at Mumbai, whereas, the parents and married sisters resided at Visakhapatnam. Further, A6, who is the Pastor, is no way related to the family of the Petitioners and that allegations attributed against him are no way connected to the offences alleged against him under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

¶28

For short ‘the Code’

¶29

3

¶30

Prohibition Act. Basing on the report of Respondent No.2, the police registered crime and after completion of investigation, police filed Charge Sheet against A1 to A6.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the Petitioners 2 and 3/A4 and A5 never lived under one roof along with A1 and respondent No.2. As per the material on record, no evidence is placed attracting the offences lodged against these petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that except bald and omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed against them. Learned counsel prays to allow the criminal petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the Petition and would submit that there are specific allegations made against the Petitioner /A2 who is the mother of A1. All the accused harassed respondent No.2 both physically and mentally seeking additional dowry and due to unbearable harassment, respondent No.2 came back to her parents’ house and lodged report against the accused. Learned counsel would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶33

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶34

Considering the submissions made and a perusal of the material on record, there is some force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding A6, who is the Pastor and undisputedly, he is neither family member nor relative of A.1. The status of a relative with regard to allegations

¶35

4

¶36

under Section 498A IPC is explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.

¶37

Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police² has held as follows:

¶38

“9. Ingredients of 498A of the Indian Penal Code are :-

¶39

a) The woman must be married

¶40

b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and

¶41

c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband."

¶42

By no stretch of imagination, a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.”

¶43

(Emphasis supplied)

¶44

And relating to the same issue, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Rajeti

¶45

Laxmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh³ held as follows:

¶46

“4. The entire reading of the charge-sheet and the statements of L.Ws. 1 to 7, goes to show that it is nobody's case of the accused or the prosecution that A-6 is the relative of husband of L.W. 1. She is only concubine of A-l and having illicit intimacy with him. Therefore, in the absence of any averment in the charge-sheet or any statement that she is a relative of Al, I am of the opinion that the offence under Section 498A, IPC do not attract to A-6. Even as per the dictionary meaning "relative" means a person connected by blood or marriage or 'a species related to another by common origin'. Simply because A-6 is having illicit intimacy with A-l, it cannot be said that she is a relative of A-1.”

¶47

(Emphasis supplied)

¶48

2 2009 (3) SCC (CRI) 36

¶49

3 I (2007) DMC 797

¶50

5

¶51

In view of the established legal position, the case against A6 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not maintainable since he is not a relative of husband of 2^nd respondent.

¶52

Coming to the case of married sisters of A1, who are arrayed as A4 and A5 is concerned, admittedly, they are married prior to the marriage of A1 and respondent No.2 and they have been residing with their respective families in Visakhapatnam, whereas, A1 and respondent No.2 stayed at Mumbai. It is alleged against A4 and A5 that they visited the house of their brother/A1 in Mumbai and stayed there for a week and during such time, they harassed respondent No.2. As can be seen from the record, except omnibus allegations against A4 and A5, nothing in specific with any details attributed against them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr.⁴ held that:

¶53

“25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.”

¶54

(Emphasis supplied)

¶55

4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682

¶56

6

¶57

And in Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh⁵ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

¶58

“13. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are distressed with the manner, the offences under Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 are being maliciously roped in by Complainant wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective legislation. The observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr . appropriately encapsulates this essence …”

¶59

The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State.”

¶60

(Emphasis supplied)

¶61

In the absence of any specific allegations, continuing the case against them

¶62

for the offences alleged against them would be a clear abuse of process of law.

¶63

Coming to the case of Petitioner No.1/A2 is concerned, as rightly put by respondent No.2, there are specific allegations against her. The matter requires investigation at full length of trial to decide the truth in the allegations alleged against her. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Petitioner No.1/A2 is an old woman aged about 71 years, suffering from

¶64

5 2025 INSC 671

¶65

7

¶66

cancer and other ailments and her presence before the Trial Court may be dispensed.

¶67

For the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Petition with respect to Petitioners 2 to 4/A4 to A6 is allowed and the proceedings against them in CC No.1463 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cumII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur, West Godavari District, are hereby quashed. The Criminal Petition against Petitioner No.1/A2 is dismissed. However, the presence of A2 before the Trial Court is dispensed, except her presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court.

¶68